Dr Parvini v University of Surrey — 2021

Case reference: 3313362/2020
Decision date: 22 September 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tuck QC

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Dr Parvini

Respondent

University of Surrey

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

On the claimant's application and by consent, Employment Judge Tuck QC dismissed Dr Williams, Ms Moor and Mr Miles as named respondents. The order records that all claims presented by Dr Parvini were dismissed upon withdrawal, save for three claims that were allowed to proceed.

The three claims identified as proceeding were unfair dismissal, including an allegation of breach of the ACAS guidelines, direct discrimination because of race (colour), and direct discrimination because of philosophical belief. The judgment is procedural only and contains no merits findings or remedy award; it simply lists those claims for a full merits hearing.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Recorded as including breach of the ACAS guidelines; the order says this claim will proceed to a full merits hearing.	Other	—	—
Race discrimination	Direct discrimination because of race (colour); the order says this claim will proceed to a full merits hearing.	Other	Race	—
Religion or belief discrimination	Direct discrimination because of philosophical belief; the order says this claim will proceed to a full merits hearing.	Other	Religion or belief	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.